Rooks v. Tindall

• Citation: 76 S.E. 378,138 Ga. 863
• Parties: ROOKS. v. TINDALL et al.
• Decision Date: 18 November 1912
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

76 S.E. 378

138 Ga. 863

ROOKS.

v.TINDALL et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 18, 1912.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Constitutional Law (§ 258^*)—Infants (§ 12*)—Due Process of Law—Delinquent Children.

Section 891 of the Penal Code of 1910. which merely defines the terms "delinquent child" and "wayward child, " as employed in the act approved September 4, 1908 (Acts 1908, p. 1107), is not violative of article 1, § 1, par. 3, of the Constitution of this state, relative to due process of law, "in that it seeks to prohibit social intercourse of all persons in this state with other persons of vicious or immoral character."

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. § 748; Dec. Dig. § 258;* Infants, Cent. Dig. § 13; Dee. Dig. § 12.*]

2. Constitutional Law (§ 46*) — Constitutional Objections—Scope.

A criticism that "sections 885 to 900, inclusive, of the Penal Code" of 1910 of this state, are violative of article 6, § 4, par. 7, of the Constitution of Georgia, "in that it confers upon the superior court the right to render judgment in cases" thereunder "without the intervention of a jury, " is too general to raise a question as to the constitutionality of any particular section of the Code; it appearing that many of the various sections included in thecriticism have no reference to the subject of trial without a jury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 43-45; Dec. Dig. § 46.^2-*]

3. Infants (§ 16*)—Jury (§ 21*) — Delinquent Children—Trial.

On a trial for the commitment of a child as a "delinquent child" or "wayward child" in the "children's court, " as created in article 11 of the Penal Code of 1910 of Georgia, the judge, in the absence of a demand for a jury trial, may proceed without the intervention of a jury (Penal Code 1910, § 890), and he may appoint an attorney to represent the child, but he is not obliged to do so (Penal Code 1910, § 894).

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Infants, Cent. Dig. § 16; Dec. Dig. § 16;* Jury, Cent Dig. §§ 134-142; Dec. Dig. § 21.*]

4. Habeas Corpus (§ 109*) — Delinquent Children—Custody.

On the trial of a habeas corpus proceeding for the custody of a child, where it appeared that the child was held under a commitment by the judge of the "children's court, " in accordance with the provisions of sections 892 to 895, inclusive, of the Penal Code of 1910, it was not error to remand the custody of the child to the keeping of the probation officer of the court.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 97, 98; Dec. Dig. § 109.*]

Error from Superor Court, Fulton County; Geo. L. Bell, Judge.

Habeas corpus, on petition of M. M. Rooks, by his next friend, against W. W. Tindall and others. From a decree remanding the petitioner to the probation officer, petitioner brings error. Affirmed.

Maddox & Sims, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

W. W. Tindall, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

ATKINSON, J. Judgment affirmed, All the Justices concur.

*.For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

2-*.For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes